FX-4320 vs Core 2 Extreme QX9300

Aggregate performance score

Core 2 Extreme QX9300
2008
4 cores / 4 threads, 45 Watt
1.14
FX-4320
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.98
+73.7%

FX-4320 outperforms Core 2 Extreme QX9300 by an impressive 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and FX-4320 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23791927
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesCore 2 Extremeno data
Power efficiency2.401.97
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Vishera (2012−2015)
Release dateAugust 2008 (16 years ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and FX-4320 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.53 GHz4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.53 GHz4.1 GHz
Bus rate1066 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KB192 KB
L2 cache12 MB4096 KB
L3 cache0 KB4096 KB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size2x 107 mm2315 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C71 °C
Number of transistorsno data1,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
VID voltage range1.05V-1.175Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and FX-4320 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration21
SocketPGA478AM3+
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and FX-4320. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
AMT+no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and FX-4320 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and FX-4320 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and FX-4320. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3-1866

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and FX-4320.

PCIe versionno dataNot Listed

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 1.14
FX-4320 1.98
+73.7%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 1805
FX-4320 3150
+74.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.14 1.98
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 95 Watt

Core 2 Extreme QX9300 has 111.1% lower power consumption.

FX-4320, on the other hand, has a 73.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

The FX-4320 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 in performance tests.

Be aware that Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is a notebook processor while FX-4320 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Extreme QX9300 and FX-4320, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9300
Core 2 Extreme QX9300
AMD FX-4320
FX-4320

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 91 vote

Rate Core 2 Extreme QX9300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 135 votes

Rate FX-4320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core 2 Extreme QX9300 or FX-4320, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.